Mid-term of the Bush-Clinton Administration

As President Clinton completes his first year in office,
analysts cannot avoid recognizing the vast amount of new legislation that was enacted this
year under presidential leadership. Indeed, the US hasn't seen so much legislative
accomplishment since, well, since President Bush's first year in office. While Democratic
and Republican partisans tend to magnify the difference between the Bush and Clinton
administrations, it becoming clearer than ever that we're in the middle of what may one
day be known as "The Bush-Clinton Years."

Certainly the Bush and Clinton foreign policies are
essentially similar. In Russian affairs, an interest in the status quo persuaded both
presidents to back the incumbent Russian autocrat (first Gorbachev, then Yeltsin), against
more democratic Russian critics. In the Third World, Bush and Clinton presided over an
American invasion of Somalia, and neither man could articulate a plausible reason why the
US was involved. Even Haitian refugees, an object of great sympathy during the Clinton
campaign, are being shipped back to Haiti just as fast in the second half of the
Bush-Clinton administration as they were in the first half.

The domestic policies of the Bush-Clinton years also show
great continuity. President Bush signed the largest tax increase in American history, but
his record survived only three years, until President Clinton garnered an even larger tax
increase. And both Bush and Clinton won their election by falsely promising the American
people no new taxes (in Bush's case), or a tax cut for the middle class (in Clinton's
case).

New regulations are streaming off the federal printing
presses as fast as bureaucrats can write them. This heavy pace of rule-making under
Clinton simply continues a trend begun under the Bush administration, which, during all
but that last year of Bush's tenure, reversed the Reagan trend of de-regulation.

Federal criminal justice policy likewise continues the
same. Despite some cautionary words for Attorney General Reno, nothing has changed
regarding the devotion of most of the federal crime-fighting effort to drug control. All
of the Bush administration mandatory minimums for first-time drug offenders remain in
place, and are being vigorously enforced by the Clinton administration.

Gun control attracts more rhetoric from Clinton, but it
was George Bush, after all, who single-handedly gave the gun control lobby its greatest
public relations coup ever, with the ban on the import of politically incorrect
semi-automatic firearms. And it was under the Bush administration when the Centers for
Disease Control began using federal take dollars to begin agitating for gun control as a
"public health" issue.

Regarding education, President Clinton continues the Bush
policy of imposing curriculum fads such as "Outcome Based Education" on local
school districts. And while candidates Bush and Clinton stumped enthusiastically for tough
welfare reform, the Bush-Clinton administration has showed no interest in actually
implementing reform.

The stylistic similarities of Bush-Clinton are also
striking. In both administrations, there is a preoccupation with "spin" to the
exclusion of content. With both presidents, there is good cause to wonder what it is that
motivated the drive for the presidency in the first place, other than a quest for
position. There is no sense of ideological mission as there was with Ronald Reagan or (in
a different way) with Jimmy Carter.

Both Presidents Bush and Clinton claimed to have voting
addresses in the American South (Texas for Bush, Arkansas for Clinton). But the hearts and
minds of both men had situated themselves solidly inside the Beltway, long before either
man announced his candidacy. Unlike Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, the candidates did not
run "against" Washington; and in the Presidential primaries, both men received
essential support from the inside the beltway crowd, defeating candidates (such as Pat
Robertson and Paul Tsongas) who were viewed as uncontrollable and uncompromising by inside
Washington.

Of course there are some clear differences between the
Clinton and Bush policies, such as abortion. But even here, there are notable
similarities: both George Bush and Bill Clinton abandoned moderate policies on the
abortion question, and took up absolutist positions to satisfy interest groups within
their own national party.

As much as the two halves of Bush-Clinton sniped at each
other during the 1992 campaign, it was clear to many voters that both candidates supported
more taxes, more spending, more deficits. more regulation, and more growth of the federal
government -- all under the supervision of a spin-controlled, philosophically rootless
administration. The similarities between Bush and Clinton perhaps explain what a candidate
with as many weaknesses as Ross Perot gained 19% of the vote; many people felt that the
Bush-Clinton "choice" was a meaningless as the choice between Crest and Colgate.

Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional
rights and public safety.

Nothing written here is to be construed as
necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an
attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send
comments to Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Colorado 80203. Phone 303-279-6536. (email) webmngr @ i2i.org